Definition of terrorism

[Kyuuketsuki]

Restraining someone (as the police of ANY country have to is still use of force) and Sweden apparently has a higher ratio of armed personnel (about 3.3%) to civilian than the UK (< 1%)

That might have to do with that police in sweden is allowed to have guns, Which they dont have in britain. If it's about soldiers do certainly have less then 1%.

Go look it up, the Swedish armed forces have 330,000 personnel, 10 million population, the UK has 465,000, 60 million population.

I'm saying that EVERY government, even if it governs with the consent of the people and changes democratically every x years, still uses force, people get punished by the legal system (being locked up, being restrained in any way is still force it's simply force applied for the greater good) and armed forces are still under political control.

They punish those who have commited a a crime, even if someone violate the human rights for an example. It's justice not controlling the population with force. It sounds nearly medieval to me as they rule with an iron fist. My ocuntries armed forced are just doing missions which is related to the UN. They can also never be used inside the control unless there are an invasion.

Regardless of whether you like it or not, restraining someone, locking them in a jail cell or whatever ... it is still the application of force.

And what is one key role of any elected government? To protect its electorate from all enemies foreign and domestic ... in other words those forces potentially can be used against its own people.

A elected goverment is not for protecting. Atleast not where I live. It's elected to take care humanitarian questions, healthcare, economy and school. Also Swedens goverment is also very fund of co-operate and helping other countries, specially ecnomical but also humanitarian question. It's not made to protect, its' made to serve it's people. We also don't have any enemies.

Every government has to protect its people ... it's part of what every electorate requires of them. Granted you lot may be a bit more independent that some but the basic requirements of an electorate are broadly speaking the same.

If it was USA who attacked a marine base in Japan, then the american would be conicered to have executed a strategical good plan. If not heroric. Then if the Japan would attack a city in america and bomb it with a nucelar bomb, then that would be regarded as the greatest war crime ever. Also concidered to be state terrorism and those who justify the Hiroshima ombings now wouldn't justify if Japan have done the same attack against a city in the USA.

Who cares, that isn't what happened.

Kyu